As always, a super insightful episode. David has again presented an interesting look at how dedicated people are finding ways to solve various electrification challenges, and Mr. Rao deftly communicated technical concepts in a way that mooks like me can understand and appreciate.
Also REALLY appreciate David's willingness to ask the "What about future enshitification?" question.
I called my electric utility, Northern States Power, to get the service of my soon-to-be new house put in my name. They asked if I wanted to be in a program where they would shut off my air conditioner compressor in exchange for a credit. They laid out the worst case scenario - a certain number of minutes per hour, a maximum number of days per year. It was a no-brainer. A phone call I had already made, and it was done. That was 1991. I think it was more about generation than distribution, at that time.
Good thinking and needs engineering by Span. However, this has significant risk of failure - at least in investor-owned utilities (IOUs) - without reform to the utility business model. Utilities earn profits based on amount of grid equipment deployed. Not capital efficiency. If per what Mr Rao shared they can deploy 3X more capital using more wires & transformers to solve the problem, they have a clear financial motive to do that rather than deploy Span Edges. Yes, they have some pressure on rising rates from regulators. Yes, they will say the right things, pilot etc. When it comes time, they have many ways to delay, avoid, or block equipment efficiencies like this - that make sense economically for the community! - to serve their overall profit interests. And regulators are rarely if ever capable, experienced and risk-taking enough to stop them, especially when utilities talk regretfully about how doing otherwise would put reliability at risk. Utilities have experience with this. After a decade or two, it became clear that (in the US) it’s a nonstarter to expect utilities to invest at scale in software for grid efficiency (except where they can’t easily build new transmission). IOU business model reform is needed for investor owned utilities. Community-owned utilities (eg muni electric districts), being nonprofits who actually SERVE their community, may adopt Span Edge b/c they more often do invest in what’s best overall for their community, once it’s proven.
Good questions from David and good answers from Arch Rao. This seems like a better-focused product than the full Span panel.
Good answer to the degrowther "you're breaking the grid," objection to electrification.
I finally just got a smart meter from Xcel CO. I've been meaning to find out how many folks nearby passed on that because of worries about EMFs or "privacy," or whatever anti-tech/modernity fears they have. Along those lines, interesting Ezra K interview with the Dem rep from a Trumpish in SW Washington. She seemed very fond of her 1950s washing machine and down on toxic lithium EVs.
Mr, Rao already said that if a home has a battery in their garage or outside the dwelling, then none of the Span is needed. Also, in the same way, if the utility district has built solar farms, or a little excess roof top solar, that have more GW or kW of inexpensive solar (with batteries) than needed, like in Australia, then again none of the Span or utililty controlled Span is necessary.
I'm totally sold on the value of meter collars. Pretty much all storage vendors are jumping to support those natively (in addition to deals with connectDER).
This particular application, to feed a smart subpanel, is interesting but we will see how fast it grows. I do agree that there are only a few critical circuits to manage: HVAC, EVSE, HPWH, storage/inverter, maybe induction stove w/ storage.
I am skeptical that PG&E will pay for installing this; maybe other utilities will, I don't know. In California we have a large penetration of smart meters, plus PG&E makes $$ from spending money in the distribution grid, but maybe PG&E will react to the outcry on rate increases (I haven't seen it, but maybe...).
Span panels would work particularly well in the ConEd (New York City/Westchester) area because customers there have access to a demand-based residential rate, SC1-IV, that dramatically reduces the cost of electricity for homes that have high load factors. (Electrification will typically increase a home's load factor.)
The SC1-IV rate was primarily motivated by a desire to provide more equitable rates to homes that electrify with heat pumps. A NYSERDA study showed that in the ConEd area, a home using a geothermal heat pump, if using the standard volumetric rates, would pay over $800 per year in excess of the actual cost of providing service to that home. Much of this "reverse cost shift," or subsidy to customers who use fossil fuel heating, is eliminated by the SC1-IV rate (referred to by ConEd as the "Select Pricing Rate). While in practice the rate turns out to already offer significant benefits, the reality is that the savings would be dramatically higher if there was an ability to manage the whole-house load and, for instance, ensure that heat pumps, water heaters, and EV chargers weren't all operating at the same time. The Span folk really should look into the New York City area market. As far as I know, it is the only area that has electric rates that are explicitly intended to reward high load factor customers.
Also, Span, and those who advocate for it, should also probably consider putting some effort into convincing other utilities to offer optional demand-based rates, such as that offered by ConEd. If the electric rate and the Span panel compliment each other, the results could be impressive.
As always, a super insightful episode. David has again presented an interesting look at how dedicated people are finding ways to solve various electrification challenges, and Mr. Rao deftly communicated technical concepts in a way that mooks like me can understand and appreciate.
Also REALLY appreciate David's willingness to ask the "What about future enshitification?" question.
I called my electric utility, Northern States Power, to get the service of my soon-to-be new house put in my name. They asked if I wanted to be in a program where they would shut off my air conditioner compressor in exchange for a credit. They laid out the worst case scenario - a certain number of minutes per hour, a maximum number of days per year. It was a no-brainer. A phone call I had already made, and it was done. That was 1991. I think it was more about generation than distribution, at that time.
Good thinking and needs engineering by Span. However, this has significant risk of failure - at least in investor-owned utilities (IOUs) - without reform to the utility business model. Utilities earn profits based on amount of grid equipment deployed. Not capital efficiency. If per what Mr Rao shared they can deploy 3X more capital using more wires & transformers to solve the problem, they have a clear financial motive to do that rather than deploy Span Edges. Yes, they have some pressure on rising rates from regulators. Yes, they will say the right things, pilot etc. When it comes time, they have many ways to delay, avoid, or block equipment efficiencies like this - that make sense economically for the community! - to serve their overall profit interests. And regulators are rarely if ever capable, experienced and risk-taking enough to stop them, especially when utilities talk regretfully about how doing otherwise would put reliability at risk. Utilities have experience with this. After a decade or two, it became clear that (in the US) it’s a nonstarter to expect utilities to invest at scale in software for grid efficiency (except where they can’t easily build new transmission). IOU business model reform is needed for investor owned utilities. Community-owned utilities (eg muni electric districts), being nonprofits who actually SERVE their community, may adopt Span Edge b/c they more often do invest in what’s best overall for their community, once it’s proven.
I know 4 years is an eternity, but I went back to the previous episode, and I'm glad I did.
Saul Griffith and Arch Rao on electrifying your house
Jun 28, 2021
Seems like utilities might want to supply these boxes to all there customers and suddenly have 30% more power to sell!
Good questions from David and good answers from Arch Rao. This seems like a better-focused product than the full Span panel.
Good answer to the degrowther "you're breaking the grid," objection to electrification.
I finally just got a smart meter from Xcel CO. I've been meaning to find out how many folks nearby passed on that because of worries about EMFs or "privacy," or whatever anti-tech/modernity fears they have. Along those lines, interesting Ezra K interview with the Dem rep from a Trumpish in SW Washington. She seemed very fond of her 1950s washing machine and down on toxic lithium EVs.
Mr, Rao already said that if a home has a battery in their garage or outside the dwelling, then none of the Span is needed. Also, in the same way, if the utility district has built solar farms, or a little excess roof top solar, that have more GW or kW of inexpensive solar (with batteries) than needed, like in Australia, then again none of the Span or utililty controlled Span is necessary.
I haven't seen any description of the "modular" part of the Span Edge. Any pointers?
I'm totally sold on the value of meter collars. Pretty much all storage vendors are jumping to support those natively (in addition to deals with connectDER).
This particular application, to feed a smart subpanel, is interesting but we will see how fast it grows. I do agree that there are only a few critical circuits to manage: HVAC, EVSE, HPWH, storage/inverter, maybe induction stove w/ storage.
I am skeptical that PG&E will pay for installing this; maybe other utilities will, I don't know. In California we have a large penetration of smart meters, plus PG&E makes $$ from spending money in the distribution grid, but maybe PG&E will react to the outcry on rate increases (I haven't seen it, but maybe...).
Span panels would work particularly well in the ConEd (New York City/Westchester) area because customers there have access to a demand-based residential rate, SC1-IV, that dramatically reduces the cost of electricity for homes that have high load factors. (Electrification will typically increase a home's load factor.)
The SC1-IV rate was primarily motivated by a desire to provide more equitable rates to homes that electrify with heat pumps. A NYSERDA study showed that in the ConEd area, a home using a geothermal heat pump, if using the standard volumetric rates, would pay over $800 per year in excess of the actual cost of providing service to that home. Much of this "reverse cost shift," or subsidy to customers who use fossil fuel heating, is eliminated by the SC1-IV rate (referred to by ConEd as the "Select Pricing Rate). While in practice the rate turns out to already offer significant benefits, the reality is that the savings would be dramatically higher if there was an ability to manage the whole-house load and, for instance, ensure that heat pumps, water heaters, and EV chargers weren't all operating at the same time. The Span folk really should look into the New York City area market. As far as I know, it is the only area that has electric rates that are explicitly intended to reward high load factor customers.
Also, Span, and those who advocate for it, should also probably consider putting some effort into convincing other utilities to offer optional demand-based rates, such as that offered by ConEd. If the electric rate and the Span panel compliment each other, the results could be impressive.